• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What role should mercy play in society?

What role should mercy play in society?

  • Society should always be merciful.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Society should sometimes be merciful.

    Votes: 11 61.1%

  • Society should never be merciful.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Total voters
    18
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't think anyone deserves mercy, but I do think those who are merciful to everyone and anyone are the most honorable of society. And when I say "mercy", I do not mean simply letting criminals out of jail to harm others again. Mercy can simply mean showing compassion rather than condemnation or choosing to inflict a lesser, but still effective, punishment for a criminal. For example, rather than calling a murderer a monster and wishing him a cruel end, one would still have compassion for him as human being and only wish for the punishment that would protect society from him.
Click to expand...

partly i agree with you ,but some serial killers may deserve much more than being kept away from society.
 
lizzie said:
Good question. :)
Click to expand...
I'm glad you think so. :)

Imo, mercy is something that should be practiced at the personal level, as long as it isn't detrimental to the one showing it. At a societal level, it's difficult to say, as it tends to get tied into the legal and justice system, where it's essentially useless if the laws and penalties for breaking them become blurred.
That being said, once a criminal has paid his debt to society, I think he/she should have that debt completely forgiven, and not be tagged for life with a criminal record.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree. What do you think about personal condemnation of criminals before they've paid their debt? For example, things like calling them "monsters" or wishing harm on them.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
See, but you're still saying what we should think. If you believe that it's not okay for GG to say, "this is how it is", then why is it okay for you to reply, "no, this is how it is." (FTR, I don't have a problem with either one of you saying "this is how it is", but I don't understand why he can't say it, but you can.)
Click to expand...

Just for the record: Of course I could be wrong. I just don't see how. When you really have a compassionate soul and a minimum of empathy, you cannot possibly like the idea of killing people, no matter if legal or illegal. Not necessarily because of what it means for *them*, but what it means for *you*.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
No matter if you are a common murderer or just taking joy out of executions -- there are always reasons, legal or illegal. But they are just excuses for not being civilized. Apparently, you simply love the idea of killing other people. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

Honestly there are some crimes that are so heinous and brutal in nature that I just can't understand the mindset that feels more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
 
X Factor said:
Honestly there are some crimes that are so heinous and brutal in nature that I just can't understand the mindset that feels more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
Click to expand...

Of course. Especially when you/a close person are/is the victim, it's just natural that you would feel more compassion with the victim than with the perpetrator. But the entire event is tragic.

But we often have feelings that don't bring us further. I have heard from people who lost a loved person to a crime, and they said they didn't really feel any better after the criminal was executed. Many are even surprisingly merciful. Some said they even feel horrible after the execution. It's usually the rabid bystanders reading lurid newspaper articles or lurid reports in tv who demand the harshest punishments.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
See, but you're still saying what we should think. If you believe that it's not okay for GG to say, "this is how it is", then why is it okay for you to reply, "no, this is how it is." (FTR, I don't have a problem with either one of you saying "this is how it is", but I don't understand why he can't say it, but you can.)
Click to expand...

Where did I say he can't say something? He can say whatever he wants and I get to say that he's wrong. I do think he's wrong in saying that that Tess and I just love the idea of killing someone, but of course, his comments you take no issue with. :roll:
 
X Factor said:
Honestly there are some crimes that are so heinous and brutal in nature that I just can't understand the mindset that feels more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
Click to expand...

I would say that it is due to tunnel vision whereby the moral complexity of the situation has been restricted resulting in a one dimensional approach rather than multidimensional.
 
X Factor said:
Where did I say he can't say something? He can say whatever he wants and I get to say that he's wrong. I do think he's wrong in saying that that Tess and I just love the idea of killing someone, but of course, his comments you take no issue with. :roll:
Click to expand...
Oh, well if you're playing this game, then GG never told anybody what to feel like you accused him of doing.

What I am trying to get across to you is that you are doing the exact same thing to GG that you accused him of doing. And as I said, I have no problem with EITHER one of your opinions. It's that double standard that I take issue with and you are the one perpetuating it.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm glad you think so. :)


I pretty much agree. What do you think about personal condemnation of criminals before they've paid their debt? For example, things like calling them "monsters" or wishing harm on them.
Click to expand...

I think that is something which rests with the individual. Iow, I can't control someone's thoughts/feelings/emotional responses. If you're asking if it should be banned- no, certainly not. *sticks and stones*.......
 
lizzie said:
I think that is something which rests with the individual. Iow, I can't control someone's thoughts/feelings/emotional responses. If you're asking if it should be banned- no, certainly not. *sticks and stones*.......
Click to expand...
No, I just wanted to know your thoughts which you've provided with the "rests with the individual" comment which I ultimately agree with.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What role should mercy place in society?
Click to expand...


Society should be sometimes be merciful.Really it depends on the severity of the crime.Crimes like 1st degree murder, murder associated with some other crime like burglary,armed robber, crime like rape and child molestation, and crimes like armed robbery should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.Petty theft,drug use/possession, vandalism and other minor criminals should be shown mercy the first time.
 
X Factor said:
Honestly there are some crimes that are so heinous and brutal in nature that I just can't understand the mindset that feels more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
Click to expand...
But nobody has argued that someone should feel more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
 
Gardener said:
I would say that it is due to tunnel vision whereby the moral complexity of the situation has been restricted resulting in a one dimensional approach rather than multidimensional.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, G. I admit I don't see much moral complexity in whether or not to condemn/punish a killer of children (as an example).
 
Medusa said:
partly i agree with you ,but some serial killers may deserve much more than being kept away from society.
Click to expand...
I understand that sentiment even though I don't ultimately agree with it. I understand it most when I'm emotionally connected to some "wrong" that is committed whether it's a personal attack or something more severe like a physical attack. It's usually those moments where it's most difficult for me to stick to my sense of morality which is that mercy is the best reaction in the face a perceived wrong.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Oh, well if you're playing this game, then GG never told anybody what to feel like you accused him of doing.

What I am trying to get across to you is that you are doing the exact same thing to GG that you accused him of doing. And as I said, I have no problem with EITHER one of your opinions. It's that double standard that I take issue with and you are the one perpetuating it.
Click to expand...

If I'm telling GG what to think by disagreeing with him, does that mean he did the same thing by expressing his opinion in the first place?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
But nobody has argued that someone should feel more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
Click to expand...

Yes. Based on all I heard from victims of crimes, including people I know personally, all they want is answers and a closure. Not necessarily the death of the perpetrator. Especially frustrating is the lack of satisfying answers in many cases.

As isn't death the easy way out anyway? He'll feel nothing and just go to hell (if you believe in a hell). If you really want to see him suffering, isn't knowing he'll spend most of his remaining life in prison, where he'll have plenty of time to rethink and regret his deed, the much better way?

So I don't see why opposing the death penalty means you want the perpetrator to suffer less. He'll certainly suffer enough.
 
X Factor said:
If I'm telling GG what to think by disagreeing with him, does that mean he did the same thing by expressing his opinion in the first place?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't, but that's what you accused him of doing and now you are phrasing your opinions exactly as he phrased his, but not holding yourself to the same standard.
 
German guy said:
Just for the record: Of course I could be wrong. I just don't see how. When you really have a compassionate soul and a minimum of empathy, you cannot possibly like the idea of killing people, no matter if legal or illegal. Not necessarily because of what it means for *them*, but what it means for *you*.
Click to expand...

I have a compassionate nature, but otoh, I also support the death penalty in cases where there is absolutely no doubt about the the guilt of a murderer, but I do not support the death penalty for any other crime, period. Compassion does not mean that one is willing to forgive and forget heinous acts, but that one can objectively judge and administer just punishment. Compassion denotes understanding, not merely sympathy.
 
X Factor said:
If I'm telling GG what to think by disagreeing with him, does that mean he did the same thing by expressing his opinion in the first place?
Click to expand...

Let me just say I understand where you are coming from, and I didn't mean to offend you. I don't think you love the thought of killing random people and jerk off at that idea.

I think we all have this impulse inside us. Me too. If I saw someone killing a loved person, maybe I'd kill the perpetrator too in that moment. Maybe I'd wish him dead for a while. I just think I wouldn't do myself a favor by giving in to that feeling. It may give short-term relief, but soon, demons would haunt me.

While this impulse is natural, I don't think we should act on it, but rather try to maintain a merciful soul, even if that's hard. And I don't think this impulse is much different from the impulse that drives many murderers. And that was the original question: What place mercy should have in our society.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
But nobody has argued that someone should feel more sorry for the perpetrator than the victims.
Click to expand...

Lol, well that's just bull****. If you're focused entirely on the criminal and what might make him feel bad, or even telling a victim that they're wrong to be angry or want retribution, than it's apparent where your sympathies lie, and that's fine. For myself, I cannot get the criminal act itself or the victims out of my mind.
 
lizzie said:
I have a compassionate nature, but otoh, I also support the death penalty in cases where there is absolutely no doubt about the the guilt of a murderer, but I do not support the death penalty for any other crime, period. Compassion does not mean that one is willing to forgive and forget heinous acts, but that one can objectively judge and administer just punishment. Compassion denotes understanding, not merely sympathy.
Click to expand...

I don't think it requires sympathy with a murderer to change his punishment from death to a long prison sentence. As I said above, chances are he will suffer much more when left alife in prison, than by a quick death.
 
German guy said:
Yes. Based on all I heard from victims of crimes, including people I know personally, all they want is answers and a closure. Not necessarily the death of the perpetrator. Especially frustrating is the lack of satisfying answers in many cases.

As isn't death the easy way out anyway? He'll feel nothing and just go to hell (if you believe in a hell). If you really want to see him suffering, isn't knowing he'll spend most of his remaining life in prison, where he'll have plenty of time to rethink and regret his deed, the much better way?

So I don't see why opposing the death penalty means you want the perpetrator to suffer less. He'll certainly suffer enough.
Click to expand...
Yes, I imagine that if someone killed a person that I loved, I would want to kill them simply based on all the pain and rage I would feel from them permanently taking that person away from me. However, putting myself in that position, I don't know that watching them suffer in jail for years would ease that rage and pain because in those moments, you want a quick fix for what you feel. With that said, I don't know that watching them die would ease the pain and rage either because ultimately what I would want would be for the person I lost to come back which neither life in prison nor death would solve.

It just seems healthier for to let go of the desire for revenge, but imagining myself in position, letting go would be tremendously difficult though ultimately freeing.
 
Everyone deserves a second chance. People are not perfect by any means. In that case, yes, mercy by our government should exist but not infinitely. It should be just enough to get people back on their feet.... and it should be tightly monitored. Mercy should exist always in the Christian Church. It's a tenant by which they live so all have mercy. In the legal system, mercy should be given when someone messes up for the first or second time.... after that, there's no excuse. In general, I support a much harder and fiercer penal system such that people would want to avoid it, not make it a career move because they have it better inside jail than outside jail. And lastly, for the most heinous crimes - those which pale beyond the most monstrous, mercy should be given by God not by man. The death penalty is warranted and should be carried out in a minority of cases.
 
German guy said:
I don't think it requires sympathy with a murderer to change his punishment from death to a long prison sentence. As I said above, chances are he will suffer much more when left alife in prison, than by a quick death.
Click to expand...

Now, all of a sudden, you believe a person should suffer for a crime he's committed? That's not what you said earlier.
 
German guy said:
I don't think it requires sympathy with a murderer to change his punishment from death to a long prison sentence. As I said above, chances are he will suffer much more when left alife in prison, than by a quick death.
Click to expand...

I don't wish for longer suffering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom